As I reflect back upon my Hebrew journey which began over a decade ago, I recall what a strange and unexpected joy it was to learn the alphabet—or more specifically, the Hebrew “aleph-bet”—from scratch as an adult. While the foreign letters were unfamiliar and thus a little intimidating at first, I found it was pretty easy to learn the names of the twenty-two Hebrew letters—especially if they were put to a simple and catchy “aleph-bet” tune. Likewise, learning the phonics associated with the each of the letters also came pretty easy, as most of the Hebrew letters bear obvious similarities to an English alphabet counterpart. Coupling the sights and sounds of the Hebrew characters together, I had mapped all of them into my mind in just a couple of weeks. In fact, it seemed as if the letters were somehow already familiar—perhaps embedded into the very core of my DNA since my conception.
While I was under the impression that I had ancient aleph-bet system down in just a few weeks, in hindsight, I’m now compelled to admit that I did not scarcely understand the Hebrew aleph-bet until I discovered Jeff Benner’s
Ancient Hebrew Resource Center alphabet chart several years later. While I’m a little embarrassed to confess that I didn’t come to appreciate the significance of Jeff’s paleo-Hebrew language the first time that I encountered
it, I will now say with conviction that the Ancient Hebrew Resource Center (AHRC) alphabet chart is something that I’ll never forget.
To no fault of anyone, I would surmise that others familiar with the ancient
Hebrew aleph-bet might have a testimony that is similar to my own. From my personal experience, the first time I saw Jeff’s AHRC chart, I thought I was looking at something more like Egyptian hieroglyphs than ancient
Hebrew letters. But as I began to consider the “big picture” idea—that the ancient Hebrew characters were actually pictographs that conveyed both physical objects and action-based meanings—the language’s
foundation came into focus, and the
overall premise began to make a lot of sense. Once I came to understand how the ancient letters used to spell Hebrew root words can broken down and linked together to form abbreviated sentences that in turn define
and/or shed further light on the Hebrew terms, I became both amazed and inspired.
While a number of professional linguists are openly skeptical and seem to be eager to cast a dark shadow of doubt over early Semitic
aleph-bets and Mr. Benner’s work, presuming it to be speculative and contradictory to the “scientific” methods and results accepted by academia at large, I am writing this article to offer testimony in favor of Jeff’s
findings. As a result of my own Exodus Tabernacle discovery (project314.org) and independent Bible research, I find the bulk of Jeff’s AHRC research to be not only complementary to information provided in the existing
ancient lexicons, but also as an invaluable supplementary tool for study of the Hebrew Bible.
Before I elaborate on how Jeff’s AHRC work relates to my Tabernacle studies, it is important that the reading audience possess some understanding of my Exodus discovery and research. For those unaware, I am a mechanical
engineer, and I have specialized in Exodus Tabernacle research since rediscovering it in 2014. Although I cannot offer archaeological evidence or physical tent remains to substantiate my claim, I nevertheless profess
without doubt or apology that I have deciphered the original design of the ancient Tabernacle structure from the pages of the Exodus texts—and that the ancient “Tent of Meeting” is nothing like the rectangular abomination
that religious traditions put forth for us believe. Instead, Moses recorded plans to a tent that was unequivocally round—a yurt-like structure that towered perhaps six stories over the plains of the Sinai wilderness.
While religious traditionalists who are scarcely familiar with the English Exodus account might be quick to dismiss or outright scoff at the notion of a round Exodus Tabernacle, there is nevertheless an abundance
of evidence to support and fully endorse the conclusion. First and foremost, a number of simple proofs can be found in courtyard curtain description, as outlined in Exodus 26.
And thou shalt make curtains of goats' hair to be a covering upon the tabernacle: eleven curtains shalt thou make. The length of one curtain shall be thirty cubits, and the breadth of one curtain four cubits: and the eleven curtains shall be all of one measure. And thou shalt couple five curtains by themselves, and six curtains by themselves, and shalt double the sixth curtain in the forefront of the tabernacle. And thou shalt make fifty loops on the edge of the one curtain that is outmost in the coupling, and fifty loops in the edge of the curtain which coupleth the second. And thou shalt make fifty taches of brass, and put the taches into the loops, and couple the tent together, that it may be one. And the remnant that remaineth of the curtains of the tent, the half curtain that remaineth, shall hang over the backside of the tabernacle. And a cubit on the one side, and a cubit on the other side of that which remaineth in the length of the curtains of the tent, it shall hang over the sides of the tabernacle on this side and on that side, to cover it. (Exodus 26:7-13, KJV)
In this short Exodus excerpt, eleven narrow curtains measuring 30 x 4 cubits are described–each curtain being equipped with fifty loops at opposite sides for interconnection with an adjacent curtain. Nevertheless, these curtains are traditionally assumed to be joined at the long edges, such that a 30 x 42 rectangular swatch is made (see illustration below). Unfortunately, this approach not only fails to connect all of the curtain edges, but it also connects the curtains on the improper edges. To the contrary, the Bible text indicates that curtains are to be connected on the “outmost” edges, or sometimes interpreted as the “outermost” (i.e., farthest reaching) edges, or as more literally translated from the Hebrew, the “cut” edges (loom-woven fabric strips are cut to length [warp], whereas the width dimensions [weft] are fixed during setup with edges created by a continuous and uncut cross thread). Thus, the eleven curtains have loops woven in at opposite edges for interconnection with an adjacent one, thereby making the curtains joined in such a way such that they form a cylinder.
Perhaps of equal importance—but of greater inspiration—are the dimensions of the final assembly. As the eleven curtains measuring 30 cubits long are joined together at the short 4 cubit edge, they would create a long circumferential
strip measuring 330 cubits; however, folding the last of the eleven curtains in half (reducing the length from 30 cubits to 15 cubits per Exodus 26:9&12) results in assembled length of 315, and subtracting one cubit
(accounting for the overlapping of end joints per Exodus 26:13), would make the final courtyard or “tent” dimension measure exactly 314 cubits. As 314 is a near perfect multiple of π—the mathematical constant that conveys
the ratio between a circle’s circumference and its diameter—the dimensions hint to the final shape being round. As indicated above, a cylinder is the logical outworking of connecting a set of rectangular fabric strips
together end-to-end—given that the last two joints on the opposite edges of the strips are not left disconnected or open ended.
Upon making this π discovery, it was intuitive and logical to propose a round Tabernacle hypothesis. Consequentially, upon further examination, I quickly came to understand how nearly every verse of the Tabernacle
narrative testifies to this fact–that Exodus was describing an enormous and majestic domed tent, which has been “lost in translation” and misrepresented by religious traditions for thousands of years. Convinced that
I had rediscovered the “key to God’s House” by finding π in the Exodus text, I founded project314.org in order to further research and public understanding of the so-called “Tabernacle” of Moses, which understood from
the Hebrew to be God’s “Mishkan” or “dwelling place”.
As I am a professional engineer (as opposed to theologian) by training, it seems that the public has responded to my unprecedented Tabernacle discovery claim
in a variety of different ways. After making the discovery known to the public, I was shocked to find that most people—religious professionals included—would not investigate the claim for themselves based on the simple
and straightforward 314 discovery alone (the π ratio can also be found within letters of the Hebrew Genesis and the language of Solomon’s Temple description in the book of kings). To my dismay, it seemed that few had
the inclination, aptitude, incentive, or the confidence in my round Tabernacle claim to embark upon an independent investigation. While some have accepted the round tent discovery based upon a mixture of blind faith
and practical reasoning, many remain skeptical nevertheless as they continue to operate in a mode of “learned helplessness”. Ironically, it seems that people have more faith in deceased or familiar theologians who have
presumed to understand a structural description embedded in religious texts than they have confidence in unknown engineers expounding upon the exacting technical aspects of the same sacred texts. Furthermore, because
the end result of my translation is so radically different relative to the religious norm, skeptics are compelled to find strength in numbers and consequentially feel justified in ignoring the one single data point
that is so far off the curve—regardless of the merits of the technical arguments, the similarities to ancient or nomadic architecture, or the actual Hebrew etymology and translation methods that I used to arrive at
the round Tabernacle conclusion.
Being inundated and indoctrinated by Bible-esque artwork since their youth, most religious people are quick to conjure images of a long rectangular Tabernacle, which is nested within a large rectangular courtyard with a simple 2:1 aspect ratio. For the few who are curious enough to briefly entertain my round courtyard claim, they open their English Bibles to the otherwise unfamiliar 27th chapter of Exodus and skim to the part that mentions a court that measures 100 cubits wide by 50 cubits long, compare it to my round tent images, and quickly dismiss the possibility of a round Tabernacle. Knowing nothing of what lurks beneath the surface of their favored English translation, many consider a simple and single sampling of their text to be sufficient to affirm their preconceived biases instilled by generations of religious tradition and crude artwork. Upon a brief inspection lasting five to ten minutes, most are inclined to assume that my research is likely inspired by a disdain for religious orthodoxy, misguided by an overactive imagination, or perhaps even motivated by delusions of grandeur.
But to the contrary, Project 314 Tabernacle research and conclusions are based upon very literal application and strict adherence to the Hebrew texts–as understood from very traditional and widely accepted resources. To
be more specific, the original Round Tabernacle exegesis is based upon familiar lexicons, including Strong’s concordance, Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear text (based on Wigram's Englishman's Concordance), Brown-Driver-Briggs
Lexicon, and Geseneus’ Hebrew Grammar. In addition, “Edenics” (i.e., the notion that ancient Hebrew word meanings have been preserved via post-Babel languages to this day to various extents) and my understanding to
Modern Hebrew have likewise been useful in several isolated cases where academic and traditional Biblical Hebrew resources are found to be presumptive, unintelligent, or lacking precedent throughout the entire Hebrew
Tanakh compilation.
Apart from being attentive to Hebrew language specifics, engineering training—which instills a measure of mental discipline, systematic analysis, and attention to detail—also proved to be useful in deciphering the
structure’s true nature. After all, the Exodus text reads a little like an engineering specification or bill of materials, which typically identify material types, quantities, lengths, weights, and functions. A familiarity
with tents is also a “plus”. It should be noted, however, an engineering degree is not a prerequisite for arriving at the round Tabernacle design from the Hebrew exegesis. After all, all that is really required is a
good attention span, deductive reasoning capability, some mechanical or technical aptitude, as well as good visualization skills. Few or none of these attributes or disciplines, mind you, can be honestly attributed
to most proponents of the traditional models. After all, careful examination of rectangular Tabernacle models will typically reveal how a lack of discipline, along with an indifference to technical details and linguistic
nuances of the Hebrew texts, has resulted in the design of God’s dwelling place being misrepresented—and virtually entombed in translations for thousands of years.
Fortunately, by applying common sense, basic engineering principles, and literally adhering to Hebrew Exodus texts, I was able to prove the round Hebrew Tabernacle hypothesis to not only be viable, but really unapologetically
and exclusively correct in just a few short weeks. In contrast, any serious and objective engineer will be forced to admit that the traditional rectangular model makes awful sense—or no sense—given the numerous technical
problems and unresolved details when the Bible text is rendered in a “traditional” way, that is, with God’s dwelling place resembling a crude shoebox.
Although substantiating the majority of the round exegesis-based
Hebrew Tabernacle claims remains outside the scope of this article, a few Hebrew-centric distinctions of the text are explored herein, as they are shown to be related to some of Jeff’s AHRC work. Interested parties
are encouraged to further explore the round Tabernacle arrangement and exegesis as documented in my book (The House of El Shaddai—God’s Dwelling Place Reconsidered) or my original (Exodus Engineering Exegesis drawing
set.
As indicated above, traditional religious artwork and Bible translations alike have been highly influential in shaping perceptions of God’s dwelling place—especially for native English speakers. Interpreting the texts with numerous preconceived biases, scholars generally find themselves compelled, perhaps even subconsciously, to convey their biases within their translations of the Hebrew Bible. After all, they are tasked with creating an English narrative that reads coherently and sounds viable, which means that their own preconceptions and understandings will not only be incorporated, but will naturally take precedence over literal rendering of the Hebrew texts—even if the interjection of personal biases cannot be reconciled with original ancient language. In other words, given a “bias-over-literal rendering approach” to translation, the Hebrew text is butchered, twisted, and stretched in many places apart from the original revelation such that the English Bible rendering is made to sound coherent.
Moreover, apart from interjecting translation bias, the relative uniqueness of some of the Hebrew words used to describe mechanical or physical things in the Exodus Tabernacle account can also result in additional complications. Naturally, the handful of enigmatic language problems become exacerbated as incorrect paradigms are assumed, especially where as traditional rectangular model advocates do not all agree on the same paradigms. Consequentially, translations of mixed quality are produced. To be more specific, I have observed places and cases where some of the Hebrew is a) properly/reasonably translated, b) incorrectly/nonsensically translated deliberately as a result of bias (marked by obvious twisting of language), and c) incorrectly/nonsensically translated in ignorance and seemingly irrespective of preconceived paradigms (typically characterized by omission of detail and resulting in the loss of information). While the texts are mistranslated in many places and in different ways, it was initially a challenge to distinguish between these three cases of mistranslation, especially before making all of the paradigm shifts necessary to discern the proper round Tabernacle arrangement. After all, I began my study of the Exodus texts as perhaps anyone else would—by assuming that the ancient Hebrew Bible texts were originally translated by “expert” linguists possessing not only a great deal of reverence for the original divine revelation, but also endowed with more knowledge, wisdom, and discernment than I might be inclined to attribute to myself.
While exploring the Tabernacle narratives, one of the most essential paradigm shifts was made possible by carefully scrutinizing the Hebrew texts describing the eleven curtains in Exodus 26:7-13. Traditionally assumed to form the second layer of what is assumed to be a four-layered tent roof, I came to understand that the eleven wool curtains were instead intended to form an outer Tabernacle courtyard perimeter barrier. Confusion about the material purpose and appropriate is made evident in translation, as traditional Jewish and Christian interpreters typically render the first verse of the text as:
And thou shalt make curtains of goats' hair to be a covering upon the tabernacle: eleven curtains shalt thou
make. – Exodus 26:7 (KJV)
However, “to be a covering upon the
tabernacle” isn’t quite what the Bible language says. First of all, the passive English “be” verb, which is perhaps most often conveyed by
the active Hebrew verb היה,
meaning to “exist”, is not found in the original
Exodus 26:7 text, as shown by color-coded corollary Hebrew text below:
In addition to interjecting the passive “be”
verb, the translations generally add an indefinite article (like the “a” inserted into the English Exodus 26:7 text before
“covering”), which denotes a singular common noun. In so doing, the לאהל text is assumed to be
referring to a noun (i.e., to be a covering), as opposed to being interpreted as a
simple verb, “to cover”, even though the remaining
Hebrew אהל term (after
the Hebrew preposition ל,
meaning “to”
or “for”)
can be used as either a noun [Strong’s H168] or a verb [Strong’s H166 &
H167].